posted by fish8253-47. Manchin and Donnelly are in the Aye column.
You have a much better prediction record than me as of late but I will now predict that with the week of FBI investigation that Kavanaugh goes down. The report will be bland but provide enough info to allow the big four to say he perjured himself at the hearing.
Serious question, why do the Dems think the Repubs can’t get Barrett through before the mid terms if Kav fails? She just went through a confirmation process so it should be pretty easy, no? I haven’t seen why but everything I read was if it got to October the Dems were good until midterms.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI guarantee this is at least 50% true. Smarter, 100%.
* than I
Indeed. Maybe when I am your age trolling men half my age on the internetz in a similar fashion I will replicate your wisdom.
posted by O-TrapYep. I recall Pubs doing that during Hil's deposition, in fact.
posted by like_thatLooks like Flake has confirmed he will vote yes. I'd figured he would vote no as a fuck you to Trump.
Thing is, Kavanaugh seems like he's less hostile toward the traditional Republican in Washington, so I can believe they hop on board with him.
posted by BoatShoesWhen have LiBruLz made fun of Supreme Court Justices for being uptight.
Yeah, I've gotta disagree with that one, too.
Maybe I am missing it but I don't see making fun of uptightness in the vid? But I will concede and say I am wrong anyway.
posted by iclfan2Serious question, why do the Dems think the Repubs can’t get Barrett through before the mid terms if Kav fails? She just went through a confirmation process so it should be pretty easy, no? I haven’t seen why but everything I read was if it got to October the Dems were good until midterms.
Not sure. I think the average is 65-70 days to confirm, and with the holidays and other planned recesses there's not enough time before the new Senate is seated beginning of January? I'm sure the Repubs would and could ram it through.
But do the Dems really want to make this election about picking a SCOTUS again? If they did take the Senate, MUCHO crying about "elections have consequences" and demanding confirmation wait until after January.
If you think about it, something profoundly wrong about SCOTUS appointments influencing elections for POTUS and Congress.
posted by BoatShoesMaybe I am missing it but I don't see making fun of uptightness in the vid? But I will concede and say I am wrong anyway.
No, no. You weren't. I was unclear and all over the place in that short post. My apologies.
Liberals in my experience haven't busted anyone's chops for being uptight, and they certainly shouldn't be getting on his case for liking beer either, given RBG's almost endearing little booze-induced nap during the SOTU.
posted by gutNot sure. I think the average is 65-70 days to confirm, and with the holidays and other planned recesses there's not enough time before the new Senate is seated beginning of January? I'm sure the Repubs would and could ram it through.
Yea, I guess I imagine they just ram it through if need be. A seat vacant for 2 years would be unheard of.
I sure hope these FBI investigators dont report to the FBI admin. They aren't real credible at this point.
posted by BoatShoes
Also - to your point, Supreme Court justices should be held to,even,higher standards than elected officials because they can't be voted out.
They can be voted out by the same branch of Congress that voted them in. The house can issue articles of impeachment and the Senate votes.
posted by gutIf you think about it, something profoundly wrong about SCOTUS appointments influencing elections for POTUS and Congress.
If the other two coequal branches of the federal government would not have allowed the judicial branch to grab more power than I believe the founders intended we would no have this problem.
posted by BoatShoesYou have a much better prediction record than me as of late but I will now predict that with the week of FBI investigation that Kavanaugh goes down. The report will be bland but provide enough info to allow the big four to say he perjured himself at the hearing.
Agreed that 53-47 might be a reach. Still pretty sure he’s getting confirmed. Lest we forget that Cocaine Mitch only needs 50 votes.
It wouldn’t shock me see him schedule the vote mid week if he knows he has 50.
posted by fish82Agreed that 53-47 might be a reach. Still pretty sure he’s getting confirmed. Lest we forget that Cocaine Mitch only needs 50 votes.
It wouldn’t shock me see him schedule the vote mid week if he knows he has 50.
Proving that neither party has a monopoly on scumbag behavior.
posted by queencitybuckeyeProving that neither party has a monopoly on scumbag behavior.
Yup.
Funny how a lot of the liberal chuckleheads talk about how Ford was "sincere and believable" but Kavanaugh was a "performance". Inherent bias, sexism even, to take their testimony for anything other than face value. Or that Kavanaugh's angry and emotional response disqualifies him as unfit. I don't know if this is all a new low, but it's absolutely disgusting how the Dems have exploited, shamed and humiliated two good people (and their friends and family) for purely partisan political purposes.
Kavanaugh said some things that were pretty dubious, enough to make you think he told at least a few fibs (which actually DOES disqualify him). Ford's selective memory and account also had some issues if we were to be seriously critical, or had she faced a more serious probe on par with what Kavanaugh received.
I'm not sure the FBI will be questioning Ford, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Also not pursuing the "gang rape" accusation, which while probably the correct choice is guaranteed to remain a stain on all this.
Between last night and early this morning I watched 3 different body language videos on the Christine Ford "hearing". None of them were particularly kind or in her favor. This could be that all three of the content makers were republicans or it could be because their feelings of disgust of the freak show or it could be because they know they'll get more clicks. Who knows.
Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI
posted by CenterBHSFanBetween last night and early this morning I watched 3 different body language videos on the Christine Ford "hearing". None of them were particularly kind or in her favor.
Regardless of whatever agenda, such things are junk analysis. Useful generally, perhaps, but not everyone is going to act and react the same way.
I will say my guess for the stalling was witness prep. Perfectly reasonable, but if you start wondering about why she remembered certain things and not others, it begs the question if she didn't misrepresent her confidence in some recollections. She was 100% coached to be more credible and believable, as Kavanaugh was or has been.
Had she been properly cross-examined, like in a court of law, I doubt she would be as compelling. You don't know where the party was, but you know you only had one beer? You remember who was there, but not how you got there or how you left? How often did you and your BFF come and go from parties separately?
posted by gutRegardless of whatever agenda, such things are junk analysis. Useful generally, perhaps, but not everyone is going to act and react the same way.
I wouldn't call it junk, actually. Used by itself it can be fairly shady, generalized or unreliable. But in conjunction with investigative processes it is useful. After all, it is regularly utilized with police investigations, FBI, etc. Certainly in interrogations.
As far as the vids I watched, I'm not sure if it wasn't weaponized to fit a particular view. It is an interesting study, nonetheless!
posted by CenterBHSFanI wouldn't call it junk, actually. Used by itself it can be fairly shady, generalized or unreliable. But in conjunction with investigative processes it is useful. After all, it is regularly utilized with police investigations, FBI, etc. Certainly in interrogations.
I don't know. I saw a lot of other analyses saying exactly the opposite.
I think we all intuitively know, from body language, when someone is being deceptive. Trained investigators can become a bit more perceptive, but I'd expect there are maybe only about a handful of reliable red flags.
In the case of Ford and Kavanaugh, what I've seen with respect to body language has ventured into the unreliable and very subtle realms (a.k.a "junk"). It would be interesting to see a sample of Ford giving a lecture, to see what her normal tone and mannerisms are. I, too, thought her voice was oddly high pitched and baby-like, and saw some comments how a highly educated and accomplished, professional woman would not speak like that.
posted by gutIt would be interesting to see a sample of Ford giving a lecture, to see what her normal tone and mannerisms are. I, too, thought her voice was oddly high pitched and baby-like, and saw some comments how a highly educated and accomplished, professional woman would not speak like that.
I agree haha! I never could stand the little girl voice that some women naturally have or use. Granted, you can't help how your voice is unless you make the constant effort... but still, it's annoying af.
Welp, the left is not going to like Mitchell's memo. They are already attacking her for being partisan.
posted by like_thatWelp, the left is not going to like Mitchell's memo. They are already attacking her for being partisan.
#Believewomen .... unless it's not "our" women
The left is already complaining about the FBI investigation, which is now looking into drinking more than anything else. It's dumb. People pretending he perjured himself for downplaying his drinking. I'm fairly certain the last 6 FBI background checks delved into his drinking enough.
posted by iclfan2#Believewomen .... unless it's not "our" women
The left is already complaining about the FBI investigation, which is now looking into drinking more than anything else. It's dumb. People pretending he perjured himself for downplaying his drinking. I'm fairly certain the last 6 FBI background checks delved into his drinking enough.
I get why they're doing it. It'll probably end up being fruitless, but I get it.
Having said that, I think we're at a point now where we need to move on. Vote on Kavanaugh. Let the chips fall. If something comes of the investigation ... something substantial ... then move for impeachment.
I'm the last person to complain about stifling political movement or advancement (can't even bring myself to call it "progress"), but Kavanaugh's absence doesn't do anything to shrink the size of government.
posted by O-TrapI get why they're doing it. It'll probably end up being fruitless, but I get it.
Having said that, I think we're at a point now where we need to move on. Vote on Kavanaugh. Let the chips fall. If something comes of the investigation ... something substantial ... then move for impeachment.
I'm the last person to complain about stifling political movement or advancement (can't even bring myself to call it "progress"), but Kavanaugh's absence doesn't do anything to shrink the size of government.
We were at that point weeks ago.
posted by like_thatWe were at that point weeks ago.
I don't know about weeks. Maybe. Either way, we're certainly there now.
posted by O-TrapI don't know about weeks. Maybe. Either way, we're certainly there now.
Well I am glad you arrived to the same place that I have been for weeks. Welcome!!